Scapegoats accused 'exploited' by guberment prostitutor : Melbourne Indymedia

INDY has learned that a scapegoat hearing in Melbourne has heard 13 men who were charged after an ASIO fishing expedition with terrorist offences were [alleged] [inference added] to have been committed to 'violent jihad' because the prostitutor said so?

And they had no say at all! Funny that, how the prostitutor leads the show and runs the PR on howhards abc to make ludicrous claims without using the word alleged? So I've now added alleged to bring some truth to the lies, and propaganda purported by howhard's abc and the government's prostitutor.

The men, who were arrested in late 2005 and early 2006, are facing charges of [alleged] once more, [inference added] intentionally being a member of a terrorist organisation.

The prostitutor, Mark Dean FC, short for f****** C*** has told the court in his opening statement the men believed the world was under attack from non-Islamic forces.

Amazing grace, that's exactly what everyone else knows and is thinking. How about that? What a crime your lordship? Common sense!

That said, now in the world of THOUGHT CRIMES the prostitutor is also telling us what someone else believed?

But excuse me do we need a terrorist expert to tell us more about Soothsayers in the 21-century? What about Mick Guilty as Sin?

Mr Dean said one of the defendants, 46-year-old Abdul Benbrika, was their spiritual leader.

Which under any account is not a crime anywhere else in Australia.

He said Benbrika had told other members of the group if they wanted to die for jihad they had to do maximum damage.

But what if they were doing maximum damage with a pen and paper? Surely he can't claim maximum damage without any maximum damage equipment.

Only seven of the 13 accused are in court. Benbrika chose not to attend today's scapegoat hearing and his lawyers told the court he had been assaulted the last time he travelled. Another defendant was left at Barwon Prison after a transport mix-up.

The rest of the prisoners had to stay in jail in AA maximum security segregted with no contact with human people in a box within a box with no fresh air or sunlight with the worst of the worst offenders.

Perhaps they might have appeared too friendly?

The scapegoat hearing is continuing.

I think the above befuddled fuckwit is confused between the prosecutor's opening address (which we heard today) and the actual evidence on which the prosecution will rely to prove its case (to follow over the next few days).

The defendants will not give evidence at these proceedings. Committals are designed to ensure that only cases with a reasonable prospect of success proceed to trial at a superior court. The defence will cross examine prosecution witnesses during these proceedings but will not call any of the defendants to the witness box.

Their chance to give evidence (and be cross examined by the prosecutor) will come much later at their trial, should they be committed.

No doubt they saw the mess Faheem Lodhi got himself into when trying to spin bullshit in the face of skilled cross examination.

The basic rule is this: if you're genuinely innocent, you have no problems jumping the box and having your say. As Lord Denning so famously said, an innocent man cannot incriminate himself by speaking the truth.

If you are guilty and intent on fabricating lies to the jury, however, best rest in the dock and let your lawyer lie for you. He's not under oath and can't be cross examined.

I hope this little piece of free legal advice will drag some of the less enlightened from the gutter of ignorance into which many (such as the imbecile above) wish others to remain.

"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me....

I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.

T'was Grace that taught...
my heart to fear.

And Grace, my fears relieved.

How precious did that Grace appear...
the hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares...
we have already come.

T'was Grace that brought us safe thus far...
and Grace will lead us home.

The Lord has promised good to me...
His word my hope secures.

He will my shield and portion be...
as long as life endures.

When we've been here ten thousand years...
bright shining as the sun.

We've no less days to sing God's praise...
then when we've first begun.

"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me....

I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.

The rules are bent stupid there is no right for those accused your just pulling ya dick trying to explain it! I've been in more courts than you've had breakfast in your whole life.

You trying to tell me about how filthy the current legal system is? How fair it is? How the idiots have not alleged anything but implied everything. How the goals posts have moved to include thought crime about a 'thing at no place' and what other people may or may not believe?

And including torture to obtain a confession like they did with Joseph Thomas! The gulag treament!

Lawyers never learnt bent rules a law school therefore no lawyer is going to be able to defend any client!

So if you believe otherwise then you're nothing but an uninformed fuckwit!

Jury indicated it could not reach a verdict, but was ordered to push on?

These charges were that he collected maps of the Australian electricity supply system in preparation of a terrorist act (15 years), BUT WITH NO DETAILS ABOUT THE PREPARATION ACCEPT MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THOUGHT CRIME? that he sought information on chemical prices for the use of explosives for a terrorist act (life), BUT NO SOUND EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER THE CHEMICALS WERE GOING TO BE PURCHASED OR USED FOR THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES OR A TERRORIST ACT and that he possessed a document with information on the manufacture of poisons and bombs in preparation for a terrorist act (15 years). THAT HE LIKE MANY OTHERS MAY HAVE DOWNLOADED FROM THE INTERNET WHICH IS NOT ILLEGAL USUALLY?

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/115129.php

A dangerous precedent: Australian man convicted of “preparing terrorism”

Since 2001, the government has seized upon the “war” declared by US President George Bush for both domestic and international purposes. Under the guise of combating terrorism it has participated in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, diverted attention from mounting economic and social problems at home and legitimised previously unthinkable police state-style measures, including semi-secret trials, “preventative” detention and the ability to impose life sentences without any evidence of an actual terrorist act.

http://maritimes.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/12899.php

Secret evidence used in Australian “terrorist” trial

Mike Head 20 Dec 2004 16:52 GMT

Lodhi was bundled into the court building in shackles, in full view of the media. The display was intended to convey the impression that he is a violent and highly dangerous individual. Like several other Muslim men charged with terrorist offences in Australia over the past year, Lodhi has been denied bail and held in virtual solitary confinement in a “super max” prison, cut off from family and friends. Under state and federal “counter-terrorism” laws, the traditional presumption in favour of bail has been scrapped. It will only be granted in “exceptional circumstances”. On receiving a confidential affidavit from the Commonwealth, Magistrate Michael Price imposed a number of secrecy orders despite vigorous objections by lawyers for Lodhi and by media organisations. The orders mean that the affidavit itself will remain suppressed, and the media is barred from disclosing even the general nature of the material relied upon in it.

http://www.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/866066.shtml

If you call that a crime then put your head in the toilet where it belongs!

Why did he collect the maps of our electricity supply?

He didn't say.

Why did he seek information on chemical prices for the use of explosives for a terrorist act?

He didn't say.

Why did he possess explosives?

He didn't say.

Why did he possess a document with information on the manufacture of poisons and bombs in preparation for a terrorist act?

He didn't say.

See you when you get out, Mr Lohdi!

Thought crime!

Seeking prices for chemicals is not a crime?

No evidence was produced that he sought to make a bomb?

No evidence was produced that he sought to cause a terrorist attack?

I collect maps of Nuclear facilities downloaded off the Internet. Anything downloaded off the internet is not a crime, only in you own mind!

If he didn't say anything? Then you have no RIGHT just to make it up!

He did not possess any explosives?

Why did he read? Because it was there!

Redneck I hope they come for you!

You know what thought did?

He put a feather in the ground and thought he could grow a chook!

Brandies J of the Supreme Court of the United States,

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Governments purposes are beneficent.

People born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers.

Hello! It's great to be back with you all. It seems nothing has changed much since my self-enforced sabbatical from MIM. We are still replete with imbecile!

For the benefit of the feeble mindd amongst you (and I know there's a guy in Northcote who lixks windows), letme explain a basic legal principle.

None of the things Mr Lohdi possessed, by themselves, would intimate a guilty intent.

But possessed together and combined with palpably false excuses which changed as they were exposed as such by cross examination proved an insurmountable hurdle.

A person wearing a balaclava, per se, commits no offence. The same person driving a stolen car is perhaps nothin gmore than a thief. The same person holding a sawn-off shotgun, in isolation from the above circumstances, is perhaps guilty of a firearms charge at best.

But put the same person in a stolen car, armed with a shotgun and wearing a balaclava outside a bank and you have what is called a circumstantial case. The same principle applied in Lohdi's case. Taken together, in all the circumstances, including his observed activities and false alibis, the evidence presented as a strong case.

Whatever the uninformed and prejudiced may think.

Now go away and stop bothering us with your hyperbole and crap. I tire so of your ignorance.